Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:DanH

2007-08-18T22:35:31Z

DaiseyCutter: /* cabsmith */

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

== unicode ==

Do you know how to use unicode to avoid the spam filter? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*I am sure you read all that on that other wiki. Check with them. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal? ==
So I'm a "vandal" am I? Clean out your ears, knucklehead, because I'm about to tell you something about real vandals. The real Vandals were a race of pagan barbarian murderers and thieves who swept across Europe killing anyone who got in the way of their "fun." Know who does that sound like? Not me, certainly. Maybe it sounds like those stupid teenagers you cater to on this site, who just want to "get high" and play their little murder simulators, no matter what it's doing to their family, their culture, or their country.

When I found this place, I thought it was finally the venue(look it up if you don't know what it means) for truth about dangerous parts of popular culture like Dungeons and Dragons and violent video games. You try to insert some truth into the articles over on Wacopedia, and you get shot down by mindless liberals chanting their little mantras "It's just a game," "You're a close minded fanatic," and "Get a life." I've got a life, junior, and it's a lot better than yours because I go OUTSIDE once and a while. But this was supposed to be where people can showcase a conservative(read: realistic) viewpoint on this filth. And when I come back, what do I find? Some scrawny little coward had deleted all my work and called me a "vandal."

YOU are the real vandals, peddling this smut to young children who come here to escape from the cesspit that is Wacopedia. Their loving parents see all the conservative trappings here and say, "Oh, this must be safe," but most probably never take the time to actualy read the idiotic and subversive lies you present as truth. Let's take a look, shall we?

The article on video games has pages full of nice, harmless sounding fluff, but how much information does it have on the scientificly proven pyschological effects they have on people who become violent and obsessed from playing them? A SINGLE line at the very bottom of the page about Grand Theft Auto, which everyone has already heard about and a comment from some pixelante about how we shouldn't "judge" video games based on what "a couple crazy kids did." That's the same tired rhetoric used by hippies who want their pot legalized. "Hey, man, a couple of people kill each other over drugs. But, like, the ends(brainwashed teenagers having "fun") justify the means(the death of the innocent" Here's an idea. Get out of your parent's basement and try actually living life, instead of rehearse taking the lives of those who are actually doing something worthwhile.

Your article on Dungeons and Dragons is also very telling. It's got three sections on how to play the game, and I counted at least six different places where criticism is deflected, and that's without reading the section on the "Magic System" (I don't worship the devil, and I'm not planning on casting any magic spells anytime soon, so why on earth would I read a section about how to do so?). I wander how parents would feel if they found out your website had occult knowledge right out in the open? But, hey, I suppose "If it feels good, do it." And if anybody trys to stop us, we can just plug our fingers in our ears and concentrate on something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like how your article on Hitler calls him evil. Well, duh!. A bunch of book burners is what you are, heeping all the truth about anything wrong that isn't one of your pet causes onto the bonfire with your morals and common decency.

My page on "anime," as these perverted freak call it, was mangled. Your little slant eyed toadie, [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] Morals, only had the courage to put a little note at the end about how well this sick "art" blends into porn.(Of course, some little brain fried deliquent has already subtely changed even that, so it sounds much less disgusting than it really is.) I can only thank God that you left enough of my message in that parents will be able to see the link to porn, and stop their kids from becoming ignorant sociopaths, kinda like most of the people on this site.

And finally let's look at your little advertisement for online games(your page on Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games, in case you don't know). I clicked on a few, then went back and got rid of the links to protect children from smut. I even put a note saying that they weren't family friendly. And what did one of you little cowards do? Put them back and said "I hope he's not right about them not being family friendly." Here's a novel ideal, why don't you actually CHECK? Then you could see all the violence, New Age idealogy, and practical nudity in these "family friendly" websites. But you won't do that. I'm on to you. You've probably got a little side deal with the game companies. You give them free advertising with a spin that makes it seem like their product is harmless, and you get some money for the advertising.

That just makes me sick. These children come to you for the facts without the bias and lies most media shoves down their throats. And what do you do? Line them up and march them right into the hands of the gaming companies that don't care if people get hurt or if society is degraded, as long as they can make a buck. Most gaming companies are Japanese, did you know that? Or where you too distracted by counting your shiny silver coins to actually research what you were doing? Sure, but who cares right. Aren't the Japanese Buddhist? So they believe in love and peace, right? Islam is the FASTEST GROWING religion in the world. You're kidding yourself if you think none of the Japs have converted so they could get their 72 virgins. Even a search on the internet will show you thousands of site about people who have stolen, killed themselves or others, and wasted their lives on twisted "entertainment." How many repeats of Columbine will it take before you wake up and do your part to stop this insanity?

But, I suppose this will fall on deaf ears. After all, George Washington said "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." But you don't really understand what you're selling. Will you still mock me when it one of YOUR friends or loved ones who gets gunned down by some pale, greasy gamer who's driving down the street thinking the people he's shooting aren't real, or kidnapped so some lunatic in a black robe can sacrifice them to his Dungeons and Dragons gods(who are really demons) so he can get a better result for his latest spell? Will you still think that it's all just "harmless fun" and that you don't need to warn people about a very real danger to themselves and their families then? You can do the right thing. You can stop censoring people who come here to expose the truth. You could save a life by stopping some innocent little boy from growing up to be a deranged killer.

I'm probably wasting my time though. You've probably already thrown away your mind, drooling over the latest murder simulator with all the biggest looking swords and "coolest" spells. People who try to spread the truth are always harrassed and mocked, but good always wins in the end. Hopefully, enough people will read this and do a little research on these subjects. Then they'll try to clear up the lies and misconceptions you have all over this place. They'll get censored and thrown out of course. But soon, enough people will see through these blatant advertisments for this smut and try to correct it you'll be doing nothing but trying to stem the tide of light into the tangle of biased nonsense you're using to shield your spineless business partners, who have to use tactics like this because they're to cowardly to come out in the open and defend their dangerous product. And do you know why? Because they can't. I know it, they know it, and, deep down, you know it too.

I'll be praying that somehow you find it in your heart(or at least the part that hasn't been destroyed by the dehumanizing messages these things send) to help spread the truth.

(P.S. Oh, and I'm not Jack Chick. Contrary to what you might believe, there is more than one person in this country with that name.)

: This post wins the internet. Anyways, if I were to guess, it's this guy. [http://www.jackthompson.org/] --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 22:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::This might be the funniest thing I have ever read [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

*He seemed "normal" to me on other issues. But then I have no idea what sparked his post, or anything else.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:33, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just to nitpick, at the time the Vandals attacked the Roman empire and took over North Africa, they were Arian Christian, not pagan.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 12:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== reminder ==

does the word [[Hannibal]] mean anything to you? heh heh heh[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I'll have to get that tomorrow morning; I'm going out of town for three days. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Uh-oh... ==

looks like we have a Jack Thompson impersonator trying to take you out, Dan. Or worse yet, Jack himself... I shudder at the mere thought. Be vigiliant, don't bend, we will defend you, Dan. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's only one way to tell... [[Jack Thompson|*Creates Article*]].--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:07, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::*ROFL!! Yeah, like he's something to fear, Thompson! You guys kill me sometimes, giving him the reaction he wants, lol. Good idea, Elamdri! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Dunno about you, Terry, but an opportunity to take on Thompson ''mano y mano'' is something I would relish. I hope the article I'm about to write about him attracts his wrath.--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::NOOO, you blocked him! How am I gonna have any fun now?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Let's play with this guy - he deserves it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::I somewhat doubt he's Jack Thompson, he even denied it. But still, wouldn't it be something if we got the real Jack Thompson to come sniffing around?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:18, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::As of today, that's my new goal. We know he'll find us sooner or later (he gave Wikipedia quite a headache), so let's school him quickly and get it over with. Let's move this discussion to the sysop page, agreed? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:21, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, AIM! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Congratulations Div. Chess Champ! ==

Go Dan! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:50, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

==Ranger Bill==
Sorry, I didn't do that!! My little sister (didn't ask me or anything) just put it up using my user name. Sorry that it happened.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 15:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dan, evolution article ==

Dear Dan,

My sister stated to me that the [[theory of evolution]] article was a very good article but she said, "What about the man-ape fossils?". So I added the [[paleoanthropology]] section which a leading creationist organization is going to publish at their website. I also noticed that [[Wikipedia]] did the social effects of the theory of evolution in their [[evolution]] article so I added that very briefly. I also noticed that a HUGE issue was left out and that was biological information, biological code, and genetic programs so I added a brief section.

As far as today, Andy added some material that I thought needed better footnoting and wording so that is what I was doing today.

I do think the end result was worth it. Out of 112 million articles on Google for the Theory of evolution ours is ranked #34.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Chess ==

Congratulations on winning. Not bad for a Jayhawk. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes...congratulations! I was always horrible at chess...I just move a piece and see what happens...the word strategy does not exist in my dictionary :) [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 12:42, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Congratulations. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:34, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks all. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:35, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:Belated congrats! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Would you please categorize... ==

the article on [[pornography]]? If I read the history correctly you are the protecting sysop so I figured you'd like first crack at it. May I suggest something simple like "media" for now? I have plans to re-organize many category structures but at the moment that's likely to be your best fit. Of course, you should do as you see fit. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:09, 17 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-I'm just doing them alphabetically, honest!

:Hello again,

:Would you also please categorize [[Main Page/new style]]? Thank you, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:14, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Good Catch ==

...On the user name "Bush is retarded" spelt backwards. Of course I guess I should expect that from a chess champion. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:17, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Hitler's vegetarianism==
Hi. What exactly is your source that Hitler wasn't a vegetarian? I've read numerous places that he was, including, I believe, the memoirs of his friend Albert Speer. Is the argument that he wasn't a ''strict'' vegetarian? Because there are numerous definitions of vegetarianism, and some allow for limited meat ingestion. If I recall, his reasons were health and not animal ights, but I don't think that matters. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

There's at the very least, enough controversy about whether he was [http://www.slate.com/id/2096259/] that we shouldn't dogmatically say one way or the other. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler's personal chef says his favourite dish was pigeon [http://veg.ca/content/view/171/113/]; it seems from various other sources that while he ''preferred'' a vegetarian diet, he deviated enough from it to not be classed as a vegetarian. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Sources are numerous. One source of good criticism cites how Hitler was not sympathetic to German soldiers freezing in Russia who asked for meat. Hitler went into a long spiel about how the Roman legions survived on grains, etc., and probably regarded meat eaters as subversive to the Nazi effort. Ultimately, many meat eaters probably betrayed the Nazi cause because of this--Hitler just didn't care if meat eaters got fed or not, and expected everybody to be like him and make the same sacrifices during the privations of a prolonged war, which of course to a vegetarian of many years, are not sacrifices at all. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The sources for his meat eating and love of ham and bavarian sausages are numerous also [http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/47.htm]; many commentators also point out that Hitler never claimed to be a vegetarian, outlawed vegetarian organizations and prevented all measures aimed at easing Germany’s food shortages that involved a reduction in meat consumption. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I want to put a few more pictures in the [[evolution]] article. Do you know how to do that? I want to put a picture of [[Ernst Haeckel]] in this section: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Evolutionary_theory_and_Cases_of_Fraud.2C_Hoaxes_and_Speculation.E2.80.8E I also want to put a picture of [[Stephen Gould]] in this section: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Punctuated_Equilibrium Please don't use the picture of Stephen Gould used at [[Wikipedia]]. Can you help? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:13, 18 July 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Thanks ==

Thank you for welcoming me, DanH. [[User:BrianJackson|BrianJackson]] 20:37, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Grunge ==
I agree. A lot of post-grunge bands really ruined grunge. Everclear,Third Eye Blind,Matchbox 20, and even Daughtry (he was classified post-grunge too lol) really turned grunge to pop - rock.

(whoops forgot to sign)

--[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 22:04, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Favorite Original Grunge Band: Alice In Chains

Favorite Post-Grunge: Three Days Grace or Breaking Benjamin

--[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 22:06, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== Great block! ==

Great block! Well done!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wow, a second great block in the same night!!! Very well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== thanks ==

The user who put those questionable comments was a sock of vandal redhungary, who I think you dealt with earlier. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:04, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Noah's ark ==

Heya -- I'm interested in making some changes to Noah's ark -- proposed them on the talk page -- any chance you could try unlocking it for a while and see if revert wars and/or vandalism become a problem? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please protect my signature templates ==

The templates in question are:
*[[User:PheasantHunter/TestTalk]]
*[[User:PheasantHunter/FullSig]]
and
*[[User:PheasantHunter/sig]]

I am the only person who has any business editing them (aside from Andy). Other users who edit them are probably vandalizing them. Niandra protected them, but then TK unprotected them (he was probably confused since this is a technical issue.) Could you either take it up with other sysops or just go ahead and protect the above templates? Thanks. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 12:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal blocking ==
:Good job blocking the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=DanH&page= vandals]. [[User:JohnMorrisonBirch|JohnMorrisonBirch]] 21:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Crop Circles ==

Dear Dan

I wander why you removed the information about Stonehenge. It is now in the middle of an explanation as you can see in the talk page of that article. According to the theory (?) it is a geometrical pattern and consequently a "crop circle" (near a Myth?). Neither Jazzman831 nor you asked me about it before deleting. That is not the right way to collaborate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

*Joaquin my friend, I beleive I asked you to post in the sysop area about this, no? Please do so. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deletion Request ==

Hi, you're an admin here, right? Could you delete [[Charlesincharge]]?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 22:31, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

== revert on Guillotine ==

Why is it liberal bias to cite a fact? Capital punishment is indeed contrary to the French constitution following a vote of the French Parliament, in April 2007. I do not understand why you reverted this?[[User:Sporean|Sporean]] 13:15, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

It probably wasn't, but the term First World seems to imply that. Maybe as in most of Europe, or in much of the world would be a way to put it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:16, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
:OK. By the way, thank you for having moved [[Maximilien de Robespierre]]. [[User:Sporean|Sporean]] 13:17, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== I would appreciate your support ==

Dear DanH,

I am sending you a note about the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]] and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article on [[homosexuality]] is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.

Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other internet websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:

Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help

Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:33, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

'''*Conservative, around here, it is the practice of all Sysops, except you, to discuss changes before implementing them, and asking for support. The Commandments may only be changed upon direct approval from Andy. You did not receive this direct approval, no? Kindly try and act like a mannered person, post your proposals to the Sysops and Andy, then be prepared for discussion and support, not the other way around. ''I could support your idea, except for the encouragement of placing templates without limitiation. We have far too much clutter already, and your failing to limit template placement, by stating some guideline for what a minimum number of citations is, will lead to chaos and endless debate as to how many are too few and how many are "enough". '' Thanks. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 15:58, 29 July 2007 (EDT)'''
:::TK, that is untrue as my message on the indicated pages clearly indicates the template is to be placed on a article or section of an article that are COMPLETELY uncited. It also gives the template for merely indicating a sentence that is uncited. Lastly, my''' cited''' articles are clearly bringing internet traffic and the uncited articles are not only breaking the conservapedia commandment about citing your sources but they are creating Conservapedia articles filled with unverifiable or hard to verify information. Plus uncited articles are not making a significant impact in regards to bringing in search engine traffic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== stonehenge ==

DanH, please do not revert me again. My new post states: broke conservapedia commandments. uncited material. please do not allow the conservapedia commandment breakers to reign freely. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sc/nthorpe ==
Why did you delete this? It is a significant town in the English East Midlands and a major centre of steel production. Just because some people have dirty minds, and CP has an absurdly oversensitive spam filter, is no reason for it not to be listed. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== revert ==

Sorry Dan, but I had to revert you. The name of the city is Чорнобиль or ''chornobyl'', but in the russian language it is Чернобыль or ''chernobyl''. The city is both Ukrainian and in Ukraine. I have moved the article so now the link works. Its alot like Kyiv the correct way and Kiev the wrong russian way. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*I shall be informing Putin of your treason. Run! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:21, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Mitt Romney]] ==

Thanks for removing the polygamy smear. I was considering removing it, but as a Mormon myself I always get nervous that I'd be accused of trying to cover up the history of my church or something silly like that. I was just about to post on the talk page asking for the opinion of others when I saw your edit; far more efficient. :-) [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 18:39, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
== Flying machine revert ==

Why did you do it? My bit was accurate and on point.[[User:Bafi|Bafi]] 20:57, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Professional wrestling]] ==

Could you delete [[Professional wrestling]]? It was created by the [[User:Dragonman|vandal]] you just blocked. Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:13, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==Transcluded text==

Hi, Mountain Dew! I created [[Template:Famine of 1933]] as [[transcluded text]]. You or anyone can edit it easily, because there is a special [[edit link]] in all three articles which invoke the template. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Ah! That's really cool, and easy to work in. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:00, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

== TO: DanH from Conservative ==

Dear Dan,

Please read the email I just sent you.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:47, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== cabsmith ==

Who is cabsmith? I don't even see a history of any contributions of that user. [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 18:28, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Somebody who shared your IP with you when you were in Atlanta a week ago, or whatever it may be. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:33, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:I am lost. But am I not allowed to participate here? [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 18:35, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DanH

2007-08-18T22:28:22Z

DaiseyCutter: cabsmith

Talk:Georgia guidestones

2007-08-18T21:36:57Z

DaiseyCutter: Need photo

Could somebody upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Georgia_Guidestones_English.jpg this] file or some similar? Thanks. [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 17:36, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Sexual orientation theory

2007-08-18T21:19:27Z

DaiseyCutter: removing redundancy, and promoting "theoriezed" afterthought to theoretically adjective closer to the begining of sentence

'''Sexual orientation''' is an theoretically immutable [[sexual preference]], as theorized by some developmental psychologists and advocated by many social advocates and partisans.

Many social advocates assert that unknown biological factors are responsible for sexual orientation. Thus, they argue that is by no means a matter of [[choice]], and that it is pointless to try to change one's orientation. Some go so far as to say that the attempt would cause harm, so [[mental health]] professionals must not offer assistance even if asked.

In contrast, [[sexual preference]] refers to a person's preferred mode of sexual activity, fantasy or desire.

Advocates of [[homosexuality]] frequently argue that sexual orientation is fixed at birth, i.e. one is "born that way". This forms the basis of an argument that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, and thus should not be criticized. One may as well criticize a person for having blond hair, or dark brown skin.

Some homosexuality advocates make a weaker claim, i.e., that sexual orientation is caused by a number of factors but does not become unchangeable until early childhood. Likewise, this forms the basis of the argument that no one can be held morally responsible for being homosexual.

There is no scientific consensus on when sexual orientation is fixed, or whether it is fixed at all. All attempts to find a "[[gay gene]]" have failed.

Many people generally disagree with the premises of these homosexuality arguments.
*A person "born" with a strong craving for alcoholic drinks would still be held responsible if he got drunk and injured someone in a car accident.
*A person with an "inherent" hatred of blacks would still be considered a [[racist]] (and in violation of the rule, "Love your neighbor as yourself").

Some Bible passages suggest that the normal, God-given ''orientation'' for human beings is [[heterosexuality]]. Jesus taught,

*"Did you not read that He made them at the beginning of creation, male and female, did He not?
*"And it said, because of this a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife and they become both one flesh.
*"From then on they are not two, except one body. What God has thus united, a human being does not separate." (Matt. 19:4-6)

[[category:sociology]]

User talk:CPanel

2007-08-18T21:11:35Z

DaiseyCutter: Social effects of the theory of evolution

[[User_talk:CPanel/Archive1|Archive 1]]

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Restore of edit ==

After the decision was made, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 this edit] removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution decision ==

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I 2nd this motion. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== TOE ==

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Age of the earth ===
Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:
<blockquote>
This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating ''does not'' "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of [[your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
::Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
::But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=%28Talk.Origins%29_Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessively_old&oldid=41870 (Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old]." ''CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science''. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the ''coup de grâce'' to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article [[Theory of evolution]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If the RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstantiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Macroevolution article - request a ruling ==

I am writing to you regarding the current [[Macroevolution]] article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the [[Theory of evolution]] article I would like you to rule on this subject.

Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, you have taken the above out of context. The very first line stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process, in other words an idea not a fact. The next line was what you posted above. It seems that you misunderstood the context of the paragraph. The second line about the three fields would not be in opposition to any stance on conservapedia due to the first line stating that macroevolution is an idea not a fact. To not say that the three fields did not provide information would be a lie, where did the idea come from? I do not see how the methods of macroevolution could be a problem considering the number of pages on the site that use methods. There is no double mindedness between macroevolution and ToE on this cite because the macroevolution makes no claims of its stance on rather it is fact or fiction it is just a description of what scientists would consider macroevolution. My statements were cited, from university sources not from freelance websites, and no claims were made as to if macroevolution was fact or fiction, this was due to a chat with Ed Poor about keeping the edits open and placing ideology into the page, let the reader decide. If this page was to be a problem then perhaps those students that planned to take the SAT should look else where for as it stands the previous edit, before I added information, would not have given enough information to make the article a use (hence the reason for the VSA flag at the top of the page, that conservative moved after he reverted my edits).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?

:I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

We need a ruling or something about this. Conservative keeps reverting the edits and has locked the page many times. He has yet to talk with anyone about the direction of the page and basicly has hijacked it from both users and sysops. Are we to assume that the page is to be locked until further notice to allow for edits/reverts only by Conservative? Could someone please give some direction so that I know if I am wasting my time by editing pages to have them hijacked?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[Adult stem cell]]" ==

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adult_stem_cells&diff=107840&oldid=107836 this comparison] to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[homosexuality]]" ==

I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== What happened to my request? ==

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP/Adminstrator Hojimachong is making big pro-evolutionist changes in the article now ==
'''''Statistics are inherently liberal''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Admistrator Hojimachong is now making big pro-evolutionist changes in the changes in the [[Theory of evolution]] article as can be seen by this edit: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=109823&oldid=109791 The panel clearly said they did not want the direction of the article changed. Hojimachong seems to think the panel's decision is irrelevant and that Hojimachong is the one to decide. I do not think this is the way things should be done. I do think something needs to be done about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:For the love of a higher power, they aren't "pro-evo", they're statistical facts. Statistics (i.e. "scientists agree that the ToE is valid") aren't evil. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Please take your alleged evolutionists "facts" to Wikipedia where they have a much lower threshhold in terms of what is considered a fact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::: LOL! Conservative, take a math class. Learn the definition of "statistic". It's an ''indisuputable fact'' that the godless, liberal, atheist scientific community has a virtually unanimous consensus about this evil, godless theory called "evolution". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The irony is almost too much to bear. It must really irk you that no one is actually reading your, uh, diatribe, but that thousands read the one on wikipedia. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Panel submissions ==

I was under the impression that submitting a case to the panel was supposed to be a last resort for major conflicts only. If this is still the case, I suggest setting some rules to prevent abuse; after all, you are all students and you have better things to do with your time than adjudicate every petty squabble which comes up. To that end, I submit the following:

No user should submit an article to the panel for review without first:

*clearly stating their objections on the talk page of the relevant article
*inviting discussion of these objections
*inviting comments from any editors involved in the dispute, on their personal talk pages

If the discussion does not lead to a conclusion, the user should then:

*propose at least one possible solution to the conflict ('everybody do it my way' does not count)
*request the opinion of at least one '''neutral''' sysop

I don't think this is particularly radical; it's just good editorial practice in a group environment. If users can learn to solve their disputes through discussion, the project as a whole can only benefit.

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting [[CP:RFA]] and [[CP:RFB]] for official ratification ==

I hereby submit the pages linked to by the above redirects for transformation into official Conservapedia policies, where the result of the vote is binding. The current state of the RfA process simply takes potential applicants to an enitity, whether it be Sharon, Philip, Andy, or the Panel, which can decide, regardless of the community's desire, whether an individual becomes a sysop. I respectfully ask that you consider my request. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 06:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

----

==References tag to allow references to be used above; please do not remove.==
<references/>

== HELLO? HELLO? ==

Is there anybody in there? I posted two questions above and have received no response. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:So did I. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 18:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I further solved the issue of the definition of the evolutionary theory ==

I realize that the "defining of what evolution is" is a issue the panel is discussiong.

Here is a revision of the article that was recently made:

"Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as "change over time" in the gene pool of a population over time through such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution]"

I think now that what the theory of evolution is has now been adequately explained. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:Glad you think that, but it's still not a good definition. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you indeed ==

It is a great day for me. Thank you for this privilege.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Request: Define the audience, and comment on articles written at too high/low a level ==
I'd like the panel to come up with some statement of the age level we should be keeping in mind as the audience for Conservapedia, and I'd like the panel (and only the panel) to indicate... in some gentle way... articles that are written at too high or too low a level.

I'm thinking high-school-plus-or-minus two years (i.e. junior high school through college sophomore). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the idea. The panel is working on it now. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::Please don't define it in terms that only an American would understand. We don't have "junior high schools" here, and I think "college" has a different meaning. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Apologies. I was thinking of "high school" as the range User:Fox delineated below. A college sophomore would be twenty. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::In England, that would encompass ages 12 through 17 or thereabouts. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 04:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thoughts: '''World Book''' as one possible model
:I've sometimes used the phrase "like ''World Book'', not like the ''Britannica.''" On checking, I see that ''World Book Encyclopedia'' seems to avoid any direct statement of an age range, but does emphasize its direct connection to "students" and to school curricula.
:It says in fact that it is "Straightforward and understandable to students of all ages and levels"[http://www.worldbook.com/wb/About?difference] (which, literally, would include college students, graduate students and medical students) but says at [http://www.worldbook.com/wb/About?history History of World Book]
:However, it says its content is guided by research on how students use World Book, and "Last year, World Book received about 50,000 data cards from students in grades 3-12" suggesting that they are thinking of "students" aged 8 to 17.
:They say elsewhere, in [http://www.worldbook.com/wb/About?history History of World Book], that
::The first edition of The World Book Encyclopedia, issued in 1917, set a new direction for encyclopedia publishing. "As a rule," wrote Editor in Chief Michael Vincent O'Shea in the preface to that first edition, “encyclopedias are apt to be quite formal and technical. A faithful effort has been made in The World Book Encyclopedia to avoid this common defect.”
::The 1930’s saw the formation of an Editorial Advisory Board composed of distinguished educators. The Board launched an analysis of typical school curriculums, which provided the editors with data on the subjects being studied in all grades from kindergarten to high school. Today, World Book editors continue to develop content that meets curriculum needs.
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thoughts: What to '''do''' if an article is too detailed/technical
:I would think that it would be a mistake remove valid material just because it is too detailed, too technical, or written for too advanced an audience. It is also hard to ''adjust'' material down to a very different age group.
:I'm thinking that perhaps an article that is too advanced might be ''moved'' from [[XYZ]] to [[XYZ (advanced)]], and [[XYZ]] be started with a template requesting a more elementary article, and of course a "see also" section linking to [[XYZ (advanced)]].
:Or something like that. Don't delete anything, but make it clear that Conservapedia has a requirement for an (essentially new) elementary article on the same topic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::Just a thought, not a suggestion per se: I seem to recall seeing a comment from Ed Poor - I will try to find the exact quote asap - which stuck in my mind as a sensible observation. It was along the lines of, "A reader shouldn't have to go away and consult another textbook in order to be able to understand an article." [[User:Fox|Fox]] 06:13, 29 May 2007 (EDT) Added: To clarify, it was at [[Talk:Gene expression]] and the associated edit summaries in the history. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 06:31, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Advanced and simplified articles would be one way to go. Another would be to have a simplified summary at the start of a more-advanced article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you everyone for your great ideas. We have agreed upon a statement of the appropriate age level and it is posted [[Conservapedia:Article level|here]]. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 16:39, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== Situation on Template:Christianity ==

A situation has come up on [[Template:Christianity]] as regards whether or not [[Mormons]] are Christians. I have reverted the page to its original form and will keep it frozen pending a decision. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Site Sheriff(Sysop)[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:44, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Adolf ==

Adolf Hitler's name is spelt differently in the same paragraph. (Adolph and Adolf) The correct spelling is Adolf. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Luojie|Luojie]]

== Evolution ==

A first stab at proposed changes to the [[theory of evolution]] page.

The '''theory of evolution''' is a term primarily used to describe two different concepts:
* The idea that organisms change over many generations through the process of [[variation]] and [[natural selection]]
* The idea that all life on Earth is descended from a single protocell, and differentiated into its various forms solely through the processes of random variation and natural selection.

While there is no controversy regarding the truth of the theory of evolution in the first sense, there is a great deal of public controversy regarding its truth in the second sense. Specifically, [[creationism]] is an alternate viewpoint which holds that all life is ''not'' related, and life did ''not'' develop entirely by the processes of variation and natural selection; rather, a Creator designed and created life in a number of ''different'', ''distinct'', and ''unrelated'' forms, and endowed that life with the capacity to adapt to a changing environment through the processes of variation and natural selection.

== Mechanisms of evolution ==
The following mechanisms are proposed for the processes of evolution:
=== Origin of life ===
* [[Metabolism world hypothesis]]: the hypothesis that life originated with a spontaneous non-genetic metabolica cycle, and later evolved into cells;
* [[RNA world hypothesis]]: the hypothesis that life originated with RNA, which had the capacity to act both as gene and enzyme;
=== Variation ===
* [[Random mutation]]: random changes in the genetic code;
* [[Recombination]]: targetted shifts in large sections of the genetic code, primarily through [[sexual reproduction]]
=== Selection ===
* [[Natural selection]]: the removal of less adapted lifeforms from the environment
* [[Genetic drift]]: the gradual elimination of genetic variation from a gene pool through [[stochiastic]] functions;

[[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:21, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Minor suggestion for several locked articles ==

I've noticed that many of the locked articles tend to capitalize nearly every word in the headings of an article. Here is an example from [[Theory of Evolution]]:
* 1 Mutations and the Life Sciences in General
* 2 Little Consensus Regarding an Evolutionary Process
* 3 Genetic Code, Processing of Biological Data, and Biological Information
* 4 Evolutionary theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎
* 5 Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms
* 6 The Fossil Record and the Evolutionary Position
* 7 Paleoanthropology
* 8 Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium
* 9 Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position
* 10 Statements of Design
* 11 Theory of Evolution and the Scientific Journals
* 12 Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside of Biology
* 13 Age of the Earth and Universe and the Theory of Evolution
* 14 Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position
* 15 Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution
* 16 Further Reading (including free on-line versions)
* 17 See also
* 18 External Links
* 19 References
All this capitalization is difficult to read and, in my opinion looks rather awkward in the table of contents. Please consider changing these headings. Thank you. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 12:21, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:They are titles, so I vote to capitalize them. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 21:35, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
::I think they're more like headings, not titles. If each one were the title of a book, I'd understand. Look any other encyclopedia's subdivisions. Does anyone else capitalize (nearly) every word? It just looks weird to me. I know you don't like being compared to Wikipedia, but ''content aside'', they do tend to have nice formatting on most of the articles. A quick check on a few random articles from Encyclopedia Britannica also shows no such over-capitalization. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 23:53, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

== Social effects of the theory of evolution ==

Please consider putthing this under the control of the CPanel. [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 17:11, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution

2007-08-18T21:00:38Z

DaiseyCutter: This is a great article

==Article or Essay?==

This is a great essay. However, it's not an encyclopedia article. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:25, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== This is a great article ==

Keep up the good work. [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 17:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DaiseyCutter/NCSE on Wikipedia

2007-08-18T15:20:31Z

DaiseyCutter: Confirmation by COI check

Dr. Eugenie Scott, the head of the National Center for Science education (an organization that propagandizes for neo-darwinism)edits at Wikipedia, under the IP User talk:66.47.51.78, an IP registered to ncseweb.org, and has even edited artciles on Dr. Eugenie Scott.

One Wikipedian who contributes (and guards) evolution related articles at Wikipedia knows that Dr. Scott frequents and contributes to wikipedia, as can be seen by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.47.51.78&oldid=101199517 this January 16, 2007 edit].

As recently as August 9, 2007, Dr. Scott, or somebody from the NSCE, has edited an article on Dr. Scott, as can be seen with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Science_Education&diff=prev&oldid=150233759 diff].

== Possible NCSE Admission by WP account Glenn Branch ==
On August 17, 2007, an account name "Glenn Branch" stated:<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANational_Center_for_Science_Education&diff=151909738&oldid=147870597 Glenn Branch]</ref>

{{cquote|On August 9, 2007, the article was anonymously edited from NCSE's dotted quad. Although the edit was minor and factual, updating the lists of NCSE's staff and supporters, it might conceivably be regarded as a violation of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:AUTO. Hence NCSE staff members have been instructed not to edit any Wikipedia entries anonymously, and to familiarize themselves with and observe all applicable policies while editing Wikipedia. [[User:Glenn Branch|Glenn Branch]] 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)}}

It should be noted that by creating accounts and logging in, identifying the source, bias, and agenda of NCSE guardians of evolution related articles on wikipedia becomes virtually impossible.
== Confirmation ==
0603 18-aug-2007: With [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=151987512&oldid=151979862 this] edit, Wikipedia deems that it is likely a COI existed.
== Onetime Information Project Manager Wesley R. Elsberry ==

With this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWesley_R._Elsberry&diff=150648324&oldid=141844558 edit], a long time wikipedian who guards evolution related articles feigns surprise that Wesley R. Elsberry, former NCSE "Information Project Manager", is contributing at wikipedia.

With this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sternberg_peer_review_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=45233695 this edit], Wesley R. Elsberry (Onetime NCSE Information Project Manager) attempts to characterize an intelligent design paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal as "substantially similar to previously published articles" (this is part of the Sternberg-Smithsonian controversy, in which the Smithsonian relatiated against Richard Sternberg for his role in the publication of an intelligent design paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal.)

== See also ==
*[http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?ip=66.47.51.78 IP Information on 66.47.51.78]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=66.47.51.78 Contributions of 66.47.51.78]

User talk:DaiseyCutter/NCSE on Wikipedia

2007-08-18T15:10:02Z

DaiseyCutter: section headings

Dr. Eugenie Scott, the head of the National Center for Science education (an organization that propagandizes for neo-darwinism)edits at Wikipedia, under the IP User talk:66.47.51.78, an IP registered to ncseweb.org, and has even edited artciles on Dr. Eugenie Scott.

One Wikipedian who contributes (and guards) evolution related articles at Wikipedia knows that Dr. Scott frequents and contributes to wikipedia, as can be seen by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.47.51.78&oldid=101199517 this January 16, 2007 edit].

As recently as August 9, 2007, Dr. Scott, or somebody from the NSCE, has edited an article on Dr. Scott, as can be seen with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Science_Education&diff=prev&oldid=150233759 diff].

== Possible NCSE Admission by WP account Glenn Branch ==
On August 17, 2007, an account name "Glenn Branch" stated:<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANational_Center_for_Science_Education&diff=151909738&oldid=147870597 Glenn Branch]</ref>

{{cquote|On August 9, 2007, the article was anonymously edited from NCSE's dotted quad. Although the edit was minor and factual, updating the lists of NCSE's staff and supporters, it might conceivably be regarded as a violation of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:AUTO. Hence NCSE staff members have been instructed not to edit any Wikipedia entries anonymously, and to familiarize themselves with and observe all applicable policies while editing Wikipedia. [[User:Glenn Branch|Glenn Branch]] 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)}}

It should be noted that by creating accounts and logging in, identifying the source, bias, and agenda of NCSE guardians of evolution related articles on wikipedia becomes virtually impossible.
== Onetime Information Project Manager Wesley R. Elsberry ==

With this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWesley_R._Elsberry&diff=150648324&oldid=141844558 edit], a long time wikipedian who guards evolution related articles feigns surprise that Wesley R. Elsberry, former NCSE "Information Project Manager", is contributing at wikipedia.

With this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sternberg_peer_review_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=45233695 this edit], Wesley R. Elsberry (Onetime NCSE Information Project Manager) attempts to characterize an intelligent design paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal as "substantially similar to previously published articles" (this is part of the Sternberg-Smithsonian controversy, in which the Smithsonian relatiated against Richard Sternberg for his role in the publication of an intelligent design paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal.)

== See also ==
*[http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?ip=66.47.51.78 IP Information on 66.47.51.78]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=66.47.51.78 Contributions of 66.47.51.78]

User talk:DaiseyCutter/DrEugenieScottEssay

2007-08-18T15:07:10Z

DaiseyCutter: redirecting to a new sandbox

#REDIRECT [[User_talk:DaiseyCutter/NCSE_on_Wikipedia]]

User talk:DaiseyCutter/NCSE on Wikipedia

2007-08-18T15:06:24Z

DaiseyCutter: moving to better title

Dr. Eugenie Scott, the head of the National Center for Science education (an organization that propagandizes for neo-darwinism)edits at Wikipedia, under the IP User talk:66.47.51.78, an IP registered to ncseweb.org, and has even edited artciles on Dr. Eugenie Scott.

One Wikipedian who contributes (and guards) evolution related articles at Wikipedia knows that Dr. Scott frequents and contributes to wikipedia, as can be seen by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.47.51.78&oldid=101199517 this January 16, 2007 edit].

As recently as August 9, 2007, Dr. Scott, or somebody from the NSCE, has edited an article on Dr. Scott, as can be seen with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Science_Education&diff=prev&oldid=150233759 diff].

On August 17, 2007, an account name "Glenn Branch" stated:<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANational_Center_for_Science_Education&diff=151909738&oldid=147870597 Glenn Branch]</ref>

{{cquote|On August 9, 2007, the article was anonymously edited from NCSE's dotted quad. Although the edit was minor and factual, updating the lists of NCSE's staff and supporters, it might conceivably be regarded as a violation of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:AUTO. Hence NCSE staff members have been instructed not to edit any Wikipedia entries anonymously, and to familiarize themselves with and observe all applicable policies while editing Wikipedia. [[User:Glenn Branch|Glenn Branch]] 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)}}

It should be noted that by creating accounts and logging in, identifying the source, bias, and agenda of NCSE guardians of evolution related articles on wikipedia becomes virtually impossible.

With this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWesley_R._Elsberry&diff=150648324&oldid=141844558 edit], a long time wikipedian who guards evolution related articles feigns surprise that Wesley R. Elsberry, former NCSE "Information Project Manager", is contributing at wikipedia.

With this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sternberg_peer_review_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=45233695 this edit], Wesley R. Elsberry (Onetime NCSE Information Project Manager) attempts to characterize an intelligent design paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal as "substantially similar to previously published articles" (this is part of the Sternberg-Smithsonian controversy, in which the Smithsonian relatiated against Richard Sternberg for his role in the publication of an intelligent design paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal.)

== See also ==
*[http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?ip=66.47.51.78 IP Information on 66.47.51.78]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=66.47.51.78 Contributions of 66.47.51.78]

User talk:DaiseyCutter/DrEugenieScottEssay

2007-08-18T15:05:33Z

DaiseyCutter: Wesley R. Elsberry, onetime NCSE Information Project Manager, active wikipedian

Dr. Eugenie Scott, the head of the National Center for Science education (an organization that propagandizes for neo-darwinism)edits at Wikipedia, under the IP User talk:66.47.51.78, an IP registered to ncseweb.org, and has even edited artciles on Dr. Eugenie Scott.

One Wikipedian who contributes (and guards) evolution related articles at Wikipedia knows that Dr. Scott frequents and contributes to wikipedia, as can be seen by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.47.51.78&oldid=101199517 this January 16, 2007 edit].

As recently as August 9, 2007, Dr. Scott, or somebody from the NSCE, has edited an article on Dr. Scott, as can be seen with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Science_Education&diff=prev&oldid=150233759 diff].

On August 17, 2007, an account name "Glenn Branch" stated:<ref?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANational_Center_for_Science_Education&diff=151909738&oldid=147870597 Glenn Branch]</ref>

{{cquote|On August 9, 2007, the article was anonymously edited from NCSE's dotted quad. Although the edit was minor and factual, updating the lists of NCSE's staff and supporters, it might conceivably be regarded as a violation of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:AUTO. Hence NCSE staff members have been instructed not to edit any Wikipedia entries anonymously, and to familiarize themselves with and observe all applicable policies while editing Wikipedia. [[User:Glenn Branch|Glenn Branch]] 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)}}

It should be noted that by creating accounts and logging in, identifying the source, bias, and agenda of NCSE guardians of evolution related articles on wikipedia becomes virtually impossible.

With this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWesley_R._Elsberry&diff=150648324&oldid=141844558 edit], a long time wikipedian who guards evolution related articles feigns surprise that Wesley R. Elsberry, former NCSE "Information Project Manager", is contributing at wikipedia.

With this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sternberg_peer_review_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=45233695 this edit], Wesley R. Elsberry (Onetime NCSE Information Project Manager) attempts to characterize an intelligent design paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal as "substantially similar to previously published articles" (this is part of the Sternberg-Smithsonian controversy, in which the Smithsonian relatiated against Richard Sternberg for his role in the publication of an intelligent design paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal.)

== See also ==
*[http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?ip=66.47.51.78 IP Information on 66.47.51.78]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=66.47.51.78 Contributions of 66.47.51.78]

User talk:DaiseyCutter/DrEugenieScottEssay

2007-08-18T14:56:59Z

DaiseyCutter:

User:DaiseyCutter/FamineAsControl

2007-08-18T14:11:43Z

DaiseyCutter: formattting

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country
! Famine
|-
| Russia
| Some went insane. There were people who cut up and cooked corpses, who killed their own children and ate them. If discovered, they were condemned as cannibals and shot. But they who drove them to madness were evidently not guilty at all, claiming that they did it for the sake of virtue, for everybody's good. <ref>Conquest, Robert ''The Harvest of Sorrows, Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine''. NY: Oxford University Press.--Documents Stalin's famines engineered for domestic political control</ref>
|-
| China (1958-1963)
|
|-
| United States
|
|
|}
== References ==
<references/>

User:DaiseyCutter/FamineAsControl

2007-08-18T14:09:06Z

DaiseyCutter: /* References */

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country
! Famine
|-
| Russia
| Some went insane. There were people who cut up and cooked corpses, who killed their own children and ate them. If discovered, they were condemned as cannibals and shot. But they who drove them to madness were evidently not guilty at all, claiming that they did it for the sake of virtue, for everybody's good. <ref>[http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj22/johnson1.html Conquest, R. (1986). ''The Harvest of Sorrows, Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine''. by Robert Conquest NY: Oxford University Press.]</ref>
|-
| China (1958-1963)
|
|-
| United States
|
|
|}
== References ==
<references/>

User:DaiseyCutter/FamineAsControl

2007-08-18T14:08:49Z

DaiseyCutter: New page: {| class="wikitable" |- ! Country ! Famine |- | Russia | Some went insane. There were people who cut up and cooked corpses, who killed their own children and ate them. If discovered, they...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country
! Famine
|-
| Russia
| Some went insane. There were people who cut up and cooked corpses, who killed their own children and ate them. If discovered, they were condemned as cannibals and shot. But they who drove them to madness were evidently not guilty at all, claiming that they did it for the sake of virtue, for everybody's good. <ref>[http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj22/johnson1.html Conquest, R. (1986). ''The Harvest of Sorrows, Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine''. by Robert Conquest NY: Oxford University Press.]</ref>
|-
| China (1958-1963)
|
|-
| United States
|
|
|}
== References ==

User talk:DaiseyCutter/DrEugenieScottEssay

2007-08-18T02:34:03Z

DaiseyCutter: It's true

User talk:DaiseyCutter/DrEugenieScottEssay

2007-08-18T02:32:30Z

DaiseyCutter: see also ip

User talk:DaiseyCutter/DrEugenieScottEssay

2007-08-17T03:46:22Z

DaiseyCutter: Conflict of interest

User talk:DaiseyCutter/DrEugenieScottEssay

2007-08-17T03:44:01Z

DaiseyCutter:

Dr. Eugenie Scott, the head of the National Center for Science education (an organization that propagandizes for neo-darwinism) edits at Wikipedia, under the IP User talk:66.47.51.78, and has even edited her own artciles.

User '''<nowiki>[[user:filll]]</nowiki>''' at Wikipedia knows that Dr. Scott frequents and contributes to wikipedia, as can be seen by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.47.51.78&oldid=101199517 this January 16, 2007 edit].

User talk:DaiseyCutter/DrEugenieScottEssay

2007-08-17T03:42:16Z

DaiseyCutter:

Dr. Eugenie Scott, the head of the National Center for Science education (an organization that propagandizes for neo-darwinism) edits at Wikipedia, under the IP User talk:66.47.51.78, and has even edited her own artciles.

User <nowiki>'''[[user:filll]]'''</nowiki> at Wikipedia knows that Dr. Scott frequents and contributes to wikipedia, as can be seen by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.47.51.78&oldid=101199517 this January 16, 2007 edit].

User talk:DaiseyCutter/DrEugenieScottEssay

2007-08-17T03:40:27Z

DaiseyCutter: New page: Dr. Eugenie Scott, the head of the National Center for Science education (an organization that propagandizes for neo-darwinism) edits at Wikipedia, under the IP User talk:66.47.51.78, and ...

Dr. Eugenie Scott, the head of the National Center for Science education (an organization that propagandizes for neo-darwinism) edits at Wikipedia, under the IP User talk:66.47.51.78, and has even edited her own artciles.

User [[wp:user:filll]] at Wikipedia knows this as can be seen by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.47.51.78&oldid=101199517 this January 16, 2007 edit].